Posted
by
Zonk
on Tuesday March 04, 2008 @12:01PM
from the legislating-science-is-a-challenge dept.

Helical writes "In an attempt to defy the newly approved state science standards, Florida Senator Rhonda Storms has proposed a bill that would allow teachers to contradict the teaching of evolution. Her bill states that 'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.' The bill's main focus is on protecting teachers who want to adopt alternative teaching plans from sanction, and to allow teachers the freedom to teach whatever they wish, even if it is in opposition to current standards."

It doesn't make much sense to say that something is not relative. Every reference frame is relative, but some reference frames are inertial frames, whereas others are not. Since earth's frame is much less inertial than the Sun's reference frame (it's acceleration is greater relative to its frame), it makes more sense to say that the Earth orbits the Sun (since the Sun doesn't accelerate very much).

No offense or anything, but you're not explaining this well at all.DISCLAIMER: I am not a physicist. I'm only any good with kinematics, because I like intuition. I could easily get something wrong here, but here's my understanding.

The reason velocity is relative is because any inertial frame of reference "works". That is, no matter what you define the "actual" resting state is, the universe works the same way: all the forces are the same, all movement is the same, and nobody could tell the difference. That'

That is correct. Steady state velocity is not an attribute that can be measured or even detects within an isolated reference frame. In fact, the concept of velocity is inherently relative and has no meaning within an isolated frame. Acceleration, on the other hand, can be measured within an isolated frame and has meaning even in the absence of any outside reference. Think about it.

No, you've got it backwards. Acceleration is a change in velocity. If the Earth is orbiting the sun, it is changing velocity (because it is constantly changing direction and not traveling in a straight line), and therefore is experiencing acceleration.

But it is traveling at a straight line. In reality both Earth and Sun are simply following a straight path at constant speed through curved spacetime. Since they are following a straight path at constant speed, their velocity is not changing, and thus they are not experiencing acceleration. It just seems like they are being accelerated for us due to our limited perceptive ability.

Gravity in general relativity isn't a force; it is a change in the definition of "straight".

The general theory of relativity follows from the idea that you cannot distinguish between the force due to acceleration and the force due to gravity. If you are standing up in a closed elevator experiencing 1 G, is that because the Earth is pulling on you, or is it because the elevator is accelerating "up" at 10 m/s? It doesn't matter: if you shine a light beam across the elevator, it will bend "down" no matter what is causing the "downward" force.

And if the elevator is orbiting the Earth or the Sun, you will experience no force (0G), and will thus conclude that you aren't experiencing acceleration.

I know you said "most" but Kansas [washingtonpost.com] isn't considered "The South" and they're a key part of the gang of forward thinkers that preach "Intelligent Design" in public schools. Seriously though, they need to save the religious brainwashings for Sunday school. Religious education has it's place, but public school is not it. If people want their kids taught false science, send them to a private evangelical Christian school. Otherwise, why not also teach native Indian ideas of creationism in public school, such as ho

It's an unwinnable proposition. Teaching and grading students on theories that contradict their (or their parents') religious believes is itself a form of religious education.

Bullshit. Accepting that requires teachers to pander to whatever religion the parents have, which is an establishment of religion. The best thing to do is have the parents teach the kids how to deal with the difference.

Abstinence is the only sure way to avoid pregnancy (shouldn't we be teaching kids oral sex and same-sex experimentation if that's the only goal of sex ad)?

That's a religious argument - it's only being pushed by religious lobbies, and is actually less effective than condoms and the pill.

Democracy is the best form of government for every society

Then why don't we have one? Someone needs to go back to civics class.

All races and both genders are EXACTLY the same in all aspects and will be equally good at EVERY job in EXACTLY equal percentage of the corresponding population.

They are the same before the law, and you'd have trouble finding legitimate racial diffs in jobs, although some physical work is done better by men. Doesn't mean you get to tell a woman no for that construction job - you have to have a reason other than her breasts.

We don't need all our children brainwashed by the government into one single way of thinking, be it religious, political or scientific.

Says the person apparently defending the challenge to evolution going on in our schools. You preach about not indoctrinating the young while pushing an agenda of indoctrination. Nice.

Good call. I was about to post a similar thing by proposing that we allow for teaching things which "contradict" standardized math - I.E. 2+2=5. Seems only fair that math gets in on the teaching of factually inaccurate information, since math forms the basis of much of science.

Free speech doctrine actually allows all of this to begin with, no need for any affirmative right. The question is whether the employer (school district) is constrained in its choice of whether to retain the employee.This law eliminates causes for termination, more than anything, because it does not actually grant any rights the teacher (or anyone else) already has.

Actually, I posted a short snarky comment because I had to go teach a science class. What you wrote is spot on, and touches on what I really wanted to say if given the time. Now that I'm taking the time...

While granted I'm in the NE US and not in the bible-belt, I still teach science at a public high school. With the passing of NCLB, there is an increased focus on standards, and teaching to those standards. States are required, due to this law, to assess whether or not their schools are effectively teaching the state-mandated standards. Teachers, therefore, are judged based on whether or not their students are successful on the state-designed tests.

On more than one front, this proposed law is completely pointless. The real test of what Florida wants teachers to teach is in what it assesses at the state-wide level. Without being able to see those assessments (being changed to align with the new state standards by 2012) there is no real way for me to tell what they are really looking for teachers to teach. Terminating teachers is usually pretty hard to do. By far the easiest way is if a teacher's students consistently fail state-wide exams.

And despite the flamebait headline, this also means that you can't get fired FOR TEACHING EVOLUTION. In Florida, that's not a given. The state standards that just passed had to be revised to tone down the endorsement of evolution just to get through. In that light, given that this text reads in part, "freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution", I'm somewhat tempted to say that this is PRO-Evolution, rather than anti-evolution. Although to be fair, it works both ways.

The upshot is that A) You're 100% right, and this is already covered in part by free speech. B) Teachers are judged and can be terminated based on how students do on state assessments, so this is pointless. C) While you now can't get fired for this, there are plenty of things buried in most contracts to get a teacher terminated for, if you really look hard enough. All in all, not a useful law in any meaningful way.

Free speech doctrine actually allows all of this to begin with, no need for any affirmative right. The question is whether the employer (school district) is constrained in its choice of whether to retain the employee.
This law eliminates causes for termination, more than anything, because it does not actually grant any rights the teacher (or anyone else) already has.

Uh, no, the Free Speech Doctrine most certainly does not apply. A public school teacher has no more right to talk about his or her beliefs to my child any more than I have the right to start teaching your children what I think they should learn about gay marriage, equal rights, and religion. That's your choice, not mine. Teachers do NOT have the right to teach their opinions to other people's children. They have the duty to teach the curriculum approved by the local and state school boards. Essentially, they are actors, presenting a pre-written script, and they can only ad-lib so long as they stick to the general plot. This is the real reason that good public school teachers are dreadfully underpaid.

And as for removing it as a cause for dismissal, that won't protect them from charges of civil rights violation.

Frankly, if someone tried to teach my daughter that ID was "fact" and evolution was "theory", I'd have them hauled in front of a Congressional Hearing for violation of my and my family's civil rights as fast as I could push the system.

What am I teaching her? Well, ID is illogical religious fanaticism - the kind that ultimately got witches burned at the stake, and that Evolution is a theory that far surpasses any current alternative explanation in logical plausibility. Since she and my wife are Eclectic Pagans, I think this is an argument that will stick.

Does that mean she isn't allowed to learn about other religions? Of course not; that's stifling her education. She's already learned quite a lot about all the major Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam,...) and even a fair bit about the Hindi and Buddhist faiths as well as my own preference, no faith - better known as Atheism. There's a big difference in teaching something as "what some people believe" and "what we believe". And it's a bigger difference still to instill the possibility that one day she may choose a different path. It seems to me that leaving this possibility out is dooming your child (or trying to) to a future of narrow minded dogma.

Teachers do NOT have the right to teach their opinions to other people's children. They have the duty to teach the curriculum approved by the local and state school boards. Essentially, they are actors, presenting a pre-written script, and they can only ad-lib so long as they stick to the general plot.

And that's the reason why public schools fail. The only reason for education is to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to function in society as an adult. Teaching kids to conform to the party line without critical thought is useful only when training them to flip burgers.

If that's what public school teaches, fine. I'll pay for private school, and 10 years from now your kids will be serving mine -- lunch.

If you present all the relevant facts and let the students think for themselves, I don't see how this is a problem.

If this was actually done ("all" the evidence), then no one would have the slightest doubt about evolution, anymore than someone looking at the Earth from space would still question a flat earth. The problem is that most people don't want to look at the all the facts, because reality would conflict with their world view. Therefore, they ignore the facts.

The way some people freak out about this, you'd think evolution was a religion.

People "freak out" because it's the forces of ignorance attacking the forces of truth.

*if* you had the irrefutable evidence, you'd present it. you don't, so you, well, don't. you just proclaim it truth and fact as though that makes it so... such arrogance.

I suggest reading this site [talkorigins.org]. But you know you won't. Because your conclusion is already preordained. You have too much of your entire life invested in believing in supernaturalism.

there is some evidence for, there is some evidence against... we really don't know. that's the truth that should be taught in school.

Ah, the final weapon of the creationists. If they can find any question, now matter how small, that doesn't have a rock-solid answer, then they loudly proclaim that "HA! YOU SEE?? YOU SEE?? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE!!" Any open questions means that every theory is equally valid. It's akin to saying, "Since the Earth's horizon makes it look like a flat disk, therefore, the flat Earth theory is just as valid as the round Earth theory."

Well, every theory ISN'T equally valid. First of all, there is ZERO -- ZERO -- evidence against evolution. ZERO. There are certainly open questions about how certain things may have evolved, but that means there is a neutral question, not that it's "evidence against" evolution. So you have a Mount Everest of evidence for evolution, a large number of open questions (just the diversity of life and genetics means we're going to have a lot of open questions), zero evidence against evolution, and absolutely ZERO evidence that supports creationism. And, just to top it off, we have an entire planet-sized volume of evidence against the Earth being only 10,000 years old.

THAT is the carved-on-stone-tablet (if you'll pardon the expression) truth. If there really is a God (there isn't, but let's say), he must be constantly slapping his hand against his forehead screaming, "The bible is full of allegory, you idiots! What, do you think I could've explained physics to the damn barbarians?? Will you people use the brains I gave you, already?? It's a SOCIAL book, not a freaking science book!!"

Creationists need not prove anything scientifically as the Creation Story is a historical event and is not subject to the Scientific Method.

So why are they trying to hard to put it in science classrooms? It sounds like we're in agreement: Creationism and its derivatives are not science.

Evolution must be observable. The problem is that nobody has ever really observed it.

It has been observed thousands of times. Bacteria, fruit flies, and other rapidly reproducing species are regularly evolved in laboratory settings to study, for example, antibiotic resistance. Evolution (as a fact, i.e., observed data) has been well-documented, along with other facts (observed data) including the fossil record. Any theory competing with the theory of evolution must necessarily explain all of these things at least as well as evolution does.

By "Evolution", I mean this: when any species spontaneously produces a completely new type of species which did not exist before.

Except this isn't evolution. The word "species" is a human invention. We define it arbitrarily to mean a population that does not breed with another population. There are many reasons this could happen, and given enough time, it's a statistical certainty that each population will develop changes to its genes to make it incompatible with the other. There is no "instant" where this happens. No big clap of thunder and a proclamation from above that some new baby animal is now a new species. The fact that you're even suggesting this is necessary suggests you have a woefully incomplete understanding of genetics.

People "freak" because it's like saying there are alternative theories to gravity. (The Onion has done a rather well-done article on Christian scientists proposing "intelligent falling.")In fact, I think the comparison is very apt. We can observe a lot of effects from gravity and evolution, but the EXACT causes and manner in which it happens, remain somewhat of a mystery. There is no large scientific conspiracy trying to hide the truth. There is, at most, a handful of scientists trying to make a name for th

Yep, we are going to hell in a handbasket. The religious factions have acquired far too much political power period. For a country founded upon secular principles it continually amazes me to see how far we have fallen.The way the discussion is being framed is a big part of the problem - that it's an either/or situation. I've seen quotes from a number of scientists that see no conflict between faith and science; they all boil down to how you choose to define them. The sad fact is that religious zealots t

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Doesn't really look like they had completely secular principles in mind when deciding to defect and form their own country to me.

Wny yes, and this obviously is the Christian God, not the Nature's God referenced in the paragraph right above that quote.

In case you're confused:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Considering the deist nature of many of the founders, it's fairly obvious that they were referring to a more naturistic god then that referred to in whatever scripture you might choose. I find this overall to be a rather secular statement. In case you are confused secular means "of or relating to the worldly or temporal" not necessarily "no god." The statements in the Declaration towards the Laws of Nature and Nature's God are in fact very worldly.

Unfortunately, those religious zealots are also the ones that squawk the loudest. I attend a medium sized Christian University (just under 4,000 undergraduate students), and most of the professors, especially (yes, especially) the Bible and Theology professors, have no issues with Evolution and Creation. Believing that God created humanity does not automatically mean that we believe evolution is not an instrument, or is happening.

Sadly, the voices of religious people (reaching out into many faiths, beyond even Christianity) that agree with the scientific community that evolution happens, and has become an established theory, are lost in the din of assenters, including atheists, agnostics, etc. Then when the only people of religious persuasion that are heard are those who dissent, the rest of us get lumped in with them because we share a single common denominator. It's just as bad as calling Germans Nazis, Muslims terrorists, Americans fat, and the French sissy.

Yep, we are going to hell in a handbasket. The religious factions have acquired far too much political power period.

Okay, doesn't it seem like there's a contradiction in there?

For a country founded upon secular principles it continually amazes me to see how far we have fallen.

You'd have to do some serious mental gymnastics to convince yourself that the U.S. was founded on secular principles (or maybe not - they do tend to gloss over our religious heritage in public school these days).

The way the discussion is being framed is a big part of the problem - that it's an either/or situation. I've seen quotes from a number of scientists that see no conflict between faith and science; they all boil down to how you choose to define them. The sad fact is that religious zealots tend not to be persuadable.

You should have patience with "religious zealots". See, we evolved this way. We were born with the "God gene" [wikipedia.org] so we can't help what we believe. It's a scientific theory, so I'm sure you don't doubt it.

See, you're confused. If science had replaced religion, we wouldn't have people arguing about intelligent design right now, because the reigning neo-Darwinist authorities would have burned them alive as heretics. Instead, IDers are free to conduct whatever research they want to try to support their claims--the fact that they've got no evidence whatsoever is not because some Darwinian Inquistion has suppressed it, but because their ideas are substantially without merit. NOTHING makes your name in science like overthrowing the prevailing wisdom (assuming you've got the data to back it up).
Tell me, what part of the Bible, or Talmud, or Koran says, "all this is subject to revision on the basis of new findings." None, because they all purport to be the One Source of Universal Truth. This kind of arrogance is staggering--I don't think even the most unhinged scientist would claim a perfect understanding of anything in nature. Science may at times become dogmatic, but that's not a failure of the concept, it's a failure of the human beings employing it.

What's the big deal? Stupid teachers still wouldn't be allowed to teach "Intelligent Design" anyway, since -- according to the summary -- the information still has to be scientific (and "ID" fails at that).

It doesn't. And it doesn't have to, either. Why? Because complaints would be generated about any teacher trying to teach "ID" on the grounds that it wouldn't be protected by that "affirmative right" (since it's not scientific), and those complaints would work their way up the school administrative hierarchy to the school board (and probably beyond it, to the courts).

In other words, even if you can't challenge the teacher on the basis of whether he has a ri

It is reproducible. It gets reproduced constantly in both controlled and natural conditions. Evolution is not a result, it is a process. The process of evolution is easy to document in single celled organisms in almost real-time. It can be followed in plant breeding over longer periods and there are many, many long term mammal and avian breeding experiments (aka domesticated animals) that have tracked the process over the course of thousands of years. The experiments have been run and the process is observable and documented and reproducible.

So in order to prove that evolution is scientific, you must reproduce the entire chain from the beginning to the end.

That's not correct, for several reasons.

First, there is a difference between proven and provable. "Provable" means that, given sufficient data (which could exist, but is not required to), the theory could be proven if the data were applied to it. "Proven" means that the theory in question is not only provable but also that the required data actually does exist, has been found, and has been

>OK, now, prove to some fundamentalist teacher or other that it's not scientific, when they 'know' that it is.

That's already been taken care of. The US Supreme Court settled that hash in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) in a 7-2 decision. This is just the latest round in election year grandstanding by fundie politicians. This will go nowhere, even in Florida.

The Intelligent Design crowd has pushed "scientific" evidence that is in their favor. Under what jurisdiction would the "scientific" basis fall? Would it be the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS?) The School District's "science" advisor? The teachers themselves?

Without a concrete definition of whose "science" you are using, any teacher could find some half-baked textbook that proclaims to be scientific and tell the School Administrators they're teaching true "scientific" information.

Without a concrete definition of whose "science" you are using, any teacher could find some half-baked textbook that proclaims to be scientific and tell the School Administrators they're teaching true "scientific" information.

There's a simple, unambiguous test anyone can apply to objectively determine whether a theory is scientific. That is: is the theory falsifiable? Does the theory make predictions that could potentially be proven wrong by evidence? Intelligent Design fails this test.

So if you have kids, and they are taught intelligent design in this school system, then sue. You'll win. Every time a judge has heard the issue, he's ruled that intelligent design is not science. Because it's not, and it's easy for anyone impartial to see that.

There's a simple, unambiguous test anyone can apply to objectively determine whether a theory is scientific. That is: is the theory falsifiable? Does the theory make predictions that could potentially be proven wrong by evidence? Intelligent Design fails this test.

Not to rain on your parade, but while ID in general does fail the test of falsifiability, your assertion that you can objectively determine if a theory is scientific by determining if it is falsifiable isn't in line with the ideas of many modern philosophers of science. It's mainly Karl Popper's idea, who rejected inductive reasoning (which is a hallmark of scientific thinking).

I'm no philosopher, so I might be doing a poor job of explaining this, but it might be worth to take a look at the Wikipedia art [wikipedia.org]

It doesn't disprove intelligent design. It proves that intelligent design is unscientific. Unscientific beliefs could be correct, we have no way of knowing. But the point is, that since this bill would only allow teaching of the full range of scientific criticisms, that intelligent design is not included in that.

If a human foot print is found next to a fossilized dinosaur bone, would that not prove that Evolution is wrong?

Right, now come up with an example for intelligent design. You can't, no matter what you observe you can explain it by saying God designed it that way.

The thing is, you either BELIEVE that God created everything or you BELIEVE that evolution is the reason we are here or you BELIEVE something else. There is no way to truly scientifically prove how things began. Both intelligent design and evolution are religions.

As the great prophet Groucho Marx once said, "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Evolution is confirmed by masses of predictions that have turned out to be true (i.e. evidence), intelligent design has none.

Here your conflating the concepts of biogenesis (how life started) with evolution (how speciation occurred). Evolution as a theory is as well supported as any in science, but it doesn't address the origin of life itself specifically.

Biogenesis itself is a historical event and thus hard to treat scientifically. Even if you could recreate life in a test tube, that's not proof that it happened that way. So you're right, biogenesis will always be somewhat a matter of faith.

Which isn't to say we don't have plausible explanations for it, it's just not possible to directly confirm them by experiment. Our understanding of statistical mechanics makes it clear that an evolution like process could act on large populations of random polymers to favor those who self replicate.

So to conclude, you can either choose to believe that biogenesis occurred through natural processes well modeled by statistical mechanics, or that an invisible sky wizard wished us all into existence. There's no real way to prove which happened, but the reasonable choice is clear.

No, it doesn't and no, they haven't. Nostradamus has prophecies people claim have come true, for some value of "true" and "prophecies". I will make a prediction right now, and it will absolutely come true. Am I god?

There will come, from the east, a leader who shall upend the order of things and bring about a great change on the world's stage. This leader shall be a purveyor of lies but will lead his faithful to true power and his enemies the world over shall plot his death. This leader will die with the sky in his eyes and God shall smite his seeds from the Earth near his passing.

Now, let's come back in 100 years. I promise you I would, were I alive, be able to finagle this into some real world historical event. In 500 years, without a doubt. Really, prophecies are only there for stupid people.

Evolution is an observed process (including the development of new species of insects in the last 100 years).Evolution is driven by random mutations (observed), natural selection (observed), sexual selection (observed) and other selection pressures. A good example for you would be this: Catholics have a strong pressure to produce lots of children from people who find it easy to believe in god.

However, the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It is not proven.

I hope you enjoyed homeschooling. Welcome to the real world. Maybe you should put the bible down and learn about science just a little before spouting things you don't know the least about. Start by trying to understand what a scientific theory is. By agreeing that it is a theory means that you are agreeing with evolutionists.

Theories ARE the highest truth in science. I wouldn't be so short with you, but you must be trying to

I agree that is how to test weather something is scientific or not. However in what way does that disprove Intelligent Design?

It doesn't -- ID isn't disprovable, precisely because it isn't scientific. ID says "God did it". That's not of much use in a science class, because there's nothing scientific you can learn from that statement.

If a human foot print is found next to a fossilized dinosaur bone, would that not prove that Evolution is wrong?

No, evolution says nothing about dinosaurs and humans being unable to live at the same time. We're from two completely different evolutionary trees -- reptiles and mammals. Geologists and paleontologists would be pretty shocked if such a thing were to be found, but evolution wouldn't be affected in any significant way.

There are, indeed, numerous things that COULD be found or occur that would disprove evolution, yet none of those things ever has. The fact that such things are able to be spelled out ahead of time, and then tested, is precisely what makes evolution science, and ID not science.

The thing is, you either BELIEVE that God created everything or you BELIEVE that evolution is the reason we are here or you BELIEVE something else. There is no way to truly scientifically prove how things began. Both intelligent design and evolution are religions.

Evolution has nothing to say about the reasons we are here or how things began. It is not a religion, and requires no faith. You can be a staunch creationist opposed to evolution and you will get the exact same experimental results with DNA manipulation, genome sequencing, carbon dating, and fruit fly reproduction, as a fervent believer in evolution. Predictable, repeatable results independent of the experimenter are the hallmark of real science -- evolution has many, and ID has none.

If a human foot print is found next to a fossilized dinosaur bone, would that not prove that Evolution is wrong?

No, evolution says nothing about dinosaurs and humans being unable to live at the same time. [...] Geologists and paleontologists would be pretty shocked if such a thing were to be found, but evolution wouldn't be affected in any significant way.

Richard Dawkins writes: "If a single, well-verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500-million year-old rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed" [The Blind Watchmaker, 3rd ed., p. 320]. J. B. S. Haldane also said that "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" would constitute evidence that might contradict evolution.

Apparently every court in the US is going to have to deal with this one. Creationism (and ID is simply a diluted almost claimless variant of that) has failed every time it's been taken to court. What it does do is waste millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

'Every public school teacher in the state's K-12 school system shall have the affirmative right and freedom to objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins

doesn't sound to me like they can say any damned thing they please. Although I believe that evolution is God's tool (in a sense, ID) i

Woah woah woah, don't throw those nutjobs into Utah, The Discovery institute [wikipedia.org] (major proponent of ID) is out of Seattle, Washington. Most scientists here in Utah are just for the dino fossils, cancer research, or cold fusion:D

To say those sites are biased would be an understatement. Listen, there is no way that you can prove scientifically that "God did it" is right or wrong. So, it ain't science. So, there are not two sides to this argument. There is one side. ID is NOT science.

If you want to teach your kids that "God did it" is an acceptable answer to anything you don't personally understand, then fine, do that in your home or church or wherever... BUT don't pollute my children into believing that crap also. I'd like my kids to have a fair chance in the world economy, where in most 1st and 2nd world nations, they can manage to keep science to true scientific endeavors.

If it's such good science, where is the research? Why is the Discovery Institute purely a political machine? Hell, one of its great minds (supposedly) Michael Behe has never ever published any peer-reviewed article or done any research involving ID.

ID is not science. It's watered-down Creationism, a legalistic attempt to sneak past the First Amendment. Read the Dover transcripts to find out just how much science there is to ID.

Evolution needs to be taught with both sides presented so that the students can discuss and make up their own minds. Kids tend to learn better when given the facts and allowed to draw their own conclusions.

This is exactly the kind of wedge the Creationists try to use to get their religious viewpoint into the scientific curriculum and why it was modded down. I'm only going to say this once, very loudly, so you're sure not to miss it.

Be careful what you ask for. I think this is a great idea. First we teach students about problem solving, deduction, and, yes, scientific method. Then we give them two examples theories, and ask them which one is scientific.

1) A theory that...a) was deduced using the available evidence at the time.b) makes predictions that almost always turn out to be true.c) on the occasion that the predictions are not 100% correct, refinements are made (unless the theory can not be refined to include the new evidence - in which case it is thrown out).d) We go back to step b) and continue to make predictions and test the theory

or2) A theory that...a) uses a construct to handle unanswered questions in an earlier theoryb) this construct can never be used to make predictionsc) this construct can never be proven or disproven

furthermore...I don't expect teacher's to teach the Aboriginal ideas of creation.Why not? One religion's ideas of creation isn't any worse then anyone else's. The only reason ID doesn't seem as crazy as the Aboriginal ideas of creation is because ID stands on the evidence of evolution.

This is a story that gets repeated time and time again throughout history. Facts are taken in. (Stars are up in the sky). We don't have a scientific explanation for it, yet, so we turn to the supernatural. (The stars are the Gods - or put there by God). Eventually we learn, and we have more facts, and we realize, "hey, it wasn't God, after all". But as our knowledge isn't limitless, there's always going to be some things we don't know. It seems to be human nature to try to fill in our knowledge gaps with supernatural explanations, but it's never turned out to be correct in the past.

I generally agree with your statement that we shouldn't tie teacher's hands. We should allow them to teach things that aren't necessarily going to be on the curriculum. However, because of the separation of church and state, religion in a public school is a special circumstance. Any curriculum that teaches religion as truth, or even a possible truth is a bad idea. And make mistake about it, ID is most definitely teaching religion as a possible truth.

If the teachers are doing their job, then they are already teaching the scientific process, which by its vary nature teaches one to question and improve our theories.

And this bill allows teachers to do that. Why is it such a bad idea?

Allowing the teachers to teach anything they feel like without being answerable to anyone is just a recipe for disaster.

That is NOT what this bill does. And I agree with you here.

As much as I would like to think that left to their own devices they would do a good job, prior evidence seems to contradict that. We have academic standards for a reason, and, at least in the scientific field that means teaching the currently most accepted theory, and where credible alternatives exist at least mentioning them. ID however is not a credible alternative to evolution, and at its core requires the existence of a supernatural being which is clearly the province of religion, not science. You would after all not want the science teachers teaching students theories on how to detect ghosts, or organizing field trips to local "haunted" locations. Yes such an activity might be educational (if for no other reason than to teach them how to debunk certain theories), but given the limited time available to teach them, and the broad body of well established and tested theories, there is simply not enough time to properly cover all the respected theories even without requiring (or allowing) the teaching of less well founded theories.

One of the best science teachers I had gave the class and experiment to determine if salt water boiled faster than distilled water. Half the class got salt water and the other half used fresh. We all grabbed our stop watches and took to our burners and timed how long it took for the water to boil and compared our results. We all got different answers. The point of the lesso

Creationism wrapped up in the guise of scientific knowledge and academic freedom. This is an OBVIOUS effort by members of the FL legislature to pander to religious groups. It just happens to be couched in an "academic freedom" argument. Don't buy it. It isn't value neutral and it isn't fair.

Students already face an uphill battle in getting over unscientific hunches formed in childhood. Evolution, in its fullness, is a rejection of those hunches. This bill clouds the issue by allowing teachers to present a curriculum that plays to those hunches in order to serve as religious indoctrination. Think about some of the main "tenets" of ID: the notion that complexity cannot occur from iterated evaluations of simple rules--they claim things like the eye are "too complex" to have been formed via "random" mutation. This SOUNDS reasonable, until you realize that it is just a play on our intuition. It isn't true in the slightest. The same with the claim that animals or humans were elegantly designed. While there is what some scientists would call elegance in plenty of biological forms, their implementation shows signs of prior adaptations. It takes a lot of careful study to learn exactly how and why our endocrine system or our vascular system is imperfectly adapted let alone begin to think about how pregnancy is an imperfect adaptation. This is why ID is primed for the 8-12 crowd. Those critical thinking skill are just solidifying. There isn't a large movement to teach ID in colleges because the material would be rejected at greater rates.

Why should teachers be obligated to teach to a curriculum to all the other subjects but not science? I say let them teach math that contradicts mathematics, grammar that contradicts english, history revised to their personal taste, imaginary geography, using non standardized mapping systems, let them teach kids the wrong organs. For example if I believe people have 3 hearts, why shouldn't I be allowed to teach that? If some teacher thinks that the solar system rotates around the earth, or that the earth is flat, or that heavier objects fall faster, well whose to say they aren't allowed to teach that? Isn't the real purpose of having a teaching job to have a platform to spread your personal views to other peoples children?

Why stop at the subject matter? If teachers think children learn best by playing outside all day long and having no homework, well aren't the teachers the ones who are supposed to know how beast to teach? That is their life long profession isn't it? Its not like we let the teachers dictate what the current state of scientific knowledge is... oh.. wait.. that is what this bill is about isn't it?

...to allow teachers the freedom to teach whatever they wish, even if it is in opposition to current standards.

Then they're not standards anymore. That's why we have standards, so you can be guaranteed a certain level of uniformity and quality. If you don't have to follow standards then they become suggestions.

I'd like to see these people eat a big pile of USDA Grade A beef - but with flexible standards that the stores are allowed to define as to what "USDA Grade A" actually means. Would you eat it? Hell no.

Doctor: Before I give you this injection, I have to ask you an important question: do you believe in evolution?

Patient: Of course, not! Why do you ask?

Doctor: You see, I have this flu shot here. If you believe in evolution, you will accept that the flu bug is constantly changing and evolving, thus your immune system will not recognize it and you'll come down with the flu. With this shot, your immune system will be up to date on the latest strain.

Patient: And if I don't believe in evolution?

Doctor: You've already had the flu once, therefore you'll never catch it again.

Patient: But that's not...that's not...true?

Doctor: As a liberal and scientist, I would never want to force another person to accept my own views and beliefs, even if they happen to be manifestly correct.

Or to put it another way:

adventurer #1: I do not believe there is a bear in that cave.[mauling, violence, blood]adventurer #2: So you say. But your disbelief seems not to have dissuaded the bear.

The rest of the world doesn't care that you're stupiding up your children. It just makes it easier for us to crush you scientifically. Trust me when I say that the increasingly low standards for your science education just make us feel like there are more opportunities for us. I'm sure the Chinese, Japanese and Indians feel the same. The less you know, the easier it makes it for the rest of us to make stuff and sell it to you.

Thanks,

The Rest of the World (specifically those of us teaching our children proper scientific theory)

I can't tell you what a progressive move this is for supporters of the movement for the recognition of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a religion! And if this bill passes, it will open the door for its truth to be taught in schools!

Please write your representatives to THANK them for opening the door for this wonderful moment in history!

That's crap. A teacher is in a position of authority and in a science class, science needs to be taught.Evolution is how science explains observations, and until someone come along with a different theory with falsifiable tests and makes prediction, evolution best explains the observations.

That's it. Very simple. It's not about religion, it's not about thinking this is some sort of 'anti-belief' movement. Most people who ACTUALLY study the bible and it's history agree. The creation myths in the bible are parables. Pretty good ones, I must say.

What the real problem is is that the fundamental Atheists has successfully used scare tactics and FUD to get parents to believe that *teaching* about religion is the same as *preaching* religion and it's time people wake up to this tactic.

Actually, no. Speaking on behalf of all fundamentalist atheists everywhere, we have no problem with teaching about religion. Personally, I don't see how it would be possible to even have a significant understanding of most of Western literature (e.g., Shakespeare) without some understanding of the Bible.

The real problem is that the fundamentalist Christians don't want students learning about religion. They want teachers to be able to witness to students about Jesus. They're not interested in an intellectual discussion or about exposure to different ideas.

The way to challenge an accepted scientific theory is not to "critique" it. The way is to come up with alternative theories that make testable predictions, and then use the predictions to falsify the incorrect theories. What predictions does the "theory" of ID make, and how do we test them?

Apes, monkeys, and humans all evolved from a common primate ancestor. Due to differing environments and differing pressures and selection criteria for said differing environments, the populations of primate ancestor-species evolved in separate directions.

The 'missing' fossil evidence question is a red herring: every time a transitional fossil is found, the creationists say "OK, what came between that one and the next one?"--moving the goalposts, in other words. Archaeology is not geneology: you will not get a continual record of every generation back to when time began.

In addition, fossils are not the only evidence. There are patterns of genetic structures, there are cases of comparative anatomy, there are multiple other lines of evidence to choose from.

If I'm not mistaken, doesn't the existance of an intermediate life form (monkeys) show that "natural" selection lost, as we now have humans (selected appearantly) and monkeys together (the life form that "lost").

Well, you are mistaken.

Here's a hint: if evolution really predicted that every time a speciation event occurred there would be a "loser" species that would go extinct, then it would predict that there would be exactly one species of organism on the entire planet. Obviously then, either evolution is absolutely ridiculous (since there is obviously more than one species in existence) or you don't understand it. Which is more likely?

Hint number two: both branches of a speciation event can "win" because they can fill different ecological niches. Monkeys lost out on the "high intelligence and tool-making" niche; humans lost out on the "living in tall trees" niche.

Regarding the transition from apelike ancestors to the current varieties of primates, it's a lot more than theoretical. For example, if humans were created separately from chimpanzees, how come we share at least six endogenous retroviruses [blogspot.com] in the same places in our genomes, and no other primates have those retroviruses there?

And as to transitional fossils - here's my favorite, one you can even partially test on your own body. Lay your fingers on the side of your jaw. Now, trace along the edge up to the very top of the jawbone. Notice how close your fingers are to your ear canal. Inside the inner ear are three bones, the ossicles: malleus, incus, and stapes. They are carefully arranged to transfer sound energy from the eardrum to the cochlea as efficiently as possible. How could such an amazing mechanism arise? (One that's been cited, even, as 'irreducibly complex' - just Google around a bit.)

It turns out that a classification of dinosaur called the therapsids had two jaw joints. The therapsids are known (by several independent lines of evidence) to be ancestral to modern mammals... and we have a basically complete fossil record of the gradual transition of one of those jaw joints into the modern bones of the inner ear. Fossils representing over 11 separate stages have been found. Note that intermediate steps were all advantageous, though not as efficient or optimized. Some transitional forms did help amplify sound energy but didn't work while the animal was chewing. We still have problems with that under some circumstances (try to listen to someone while eating celery) but the separation is far more developed now.

Common descent explains this, and many other similar things, handily. I'm still waiting on creationist explanations. Can you point me to one?

What your post is evidence of is your personal ignorance and your belief that you're own incredulity amounts to a legitimate criticism. Even if evolution is false, it doesn't give license to declare "high intelligence". Tell me, what is so intelligent about the human knee or the human spine or the vertebrate eye? For goodness sakes, our bloody spine is quadriped structure partially realigned for bipedal motion. It's a perfect example of an evolutionary process, and if it was designed by some intelligenc

Evolution does not explain where life came from, but where species came from ("The origin of species").

The origin of the first life (or the first self-duplicating organism) is a separate matter not covered by evolution.

Evolution is anything but religion.

The word Evolution really refers to an "algorithm":
Duplicate the organism accurately, but not completely accurately.
Apply some sort of non-random selection on the result of the duplication.
Optionally mix features from multiple organisms to share evolutionary results and speed up evolution greatly.

This algorithm works, which means that whenever you have something that duplicates almost accurately, and selection applies, you will inevitably get incremental changes towards the selected traits.Since life on Earth obviously has these features, evolution is inevitable.

As for the question of whether evolution (The "Theory of Evolution") explains the past and the origins of species we can see now, my take is that given that it is obvious that evolution is inevitable, and that it can explain the formation of species and the features we see around us, its quite obviously the response fitting of occam's razor.

On top of that, we have huge amounts of evidence piled up. In my opinion, the obviousness of the inevitablity of evolution (given the duplication and selection that exist) is already enough to make evolution a default answer.

One of my problems with the Science vs Biblical-Literalism debate is posts like this: anyone who is misguided is immediately suspected of being some crazy fundamentalist loon and the enemy of reason.

You can't start a productive debate by suggesting that your opponent is inherently stupid/ignorant/bigotted.

If you respond in an informed scientific way, anyone open to hearing a rational argument will respond well to you. If, on the other hand, you respond in a way that suggest science isn't for religious peo

Supreme Court Justice: You assert that this bill has no religious mandate?Laywer for the State of Florida: Yes, we do. It's all about good science teaching.SCJ: Then why is the bill about biological evolution specifically? Why not allow the alternate teaching of mathematical theories?LftSoF: er um er...SCJ: Yeah, that's what we thought.

What I can't understand is how this is even a debate for public schools. I went to a Catholic school through junior high and there wasn't even a discussion about this. We were taught about evolution in science class, *and* in religion class we were taught that the creation stories were not meant to be taken literally.

It's true. Catholics do belive in evolution, and all science since science gives us proof of God's greatness. It's the Baptists that don't believe in evolution and shootoff other Christian religions that is the issue. Those literalists don't really understand or care to understand the real meaning of the Bible. They don't see that there can be more than one side to a story and that the Bible has much evidence of this.

I hate to burst you bubble, but the "bible-belt" reaches much farther north then you think.I am a Semi-Truck driver, and I live in Ontario, Canada. I routinely drive through Michigan and goto Ohio, Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky, and Indiana. While driving through these 'Northern' States I often experience first-hand the gross ignorance that has a strangle-hold on these 'unwashed-masses'.
-try scanning your radio and listen to all the church stations that exist. They easil

What a great idea. And those perfectly intelligent children who are born into poor or working class families that cannot afford to attend an "Ivy League" elementary school, or even any school at all in a world of only private K-12 education? Let them all flip burgers and wait on the rest of us simply because their parents had to spend money keeping them alive and had nothing left to pay for a proper education, right?

Class disparity is already a huge problem in the United States. What you are proposing would increase it even more so and result in millions of children being denied even an elementary education. You see no problem with that?

We already have private schools for children of parents who can afford them and want to segregate their children from the rest of the population for whatever reason. Proposing to abolish public education because of an issue like this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Simply fix the issue. Proposing that we bulldoze the entire building because a few windows are broken is simply ignorant.